7 ms·

If they do research with tropic aerosols, yes. But if you klick on it, page not found. So, ant say it for 100%. There was a NASA takes it to the MAX jetfuelres

If they do research with tropic aerosols, yes. But if you klick on it, page not found. So, ant say it for 100%. There was a NASA takes it to the MAX jetfuelresearch, started Jan. 2018 over germany. They did nothing else, then testing different fuels, with different effect on atmosphere. https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-takes-international-aviation-research-to-the-max https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-takes-international-aviation-... I dont like these things, because they can cause unpredictable consequences.

jmcqk6 7y ago
Is there any more to this analysis than a correlation? I.E. That there was something that happened in the general area some time period ago? I'm talking about things like thermodynamic carrying capacity, total mass of the test, prevailing wind patterns with estimates of where the aerosol might be now? A simple bayesian analysis for the current facts: what's more likely to have caused the warming - a test that generated injected a small amount of mass into the air, or the massive increase of CO2 over the last several decades? Based on these two comments, it seems like you're putting too much emphasis on correlation, and not enough analysis in to some actual thermodynamics. If you do have access to deeper analysis, please post them. I would be interested in learning something new.
- autisticmind 7y ago
  Sorry for the late answear, didnt saw it. In this case, its a mix of both. I am not a scientist, so i cant make any analysis. But i read a lot in few last months. I searched for answears i could not find directly. And a small amount of mass(particles) into the air, can cause very big effects. Massive increase of co2 is warming, yes. And when u test tropical aerosols, warming will increase. Different aerosols have different effects on the atmosphere. And the heigt where they were injected also plays a role. As i done my private research, i came to the point, there must be more than only one sort of co2. And i was right.

jmcqk6 7y ago

Is there any more to this analysis than a correlation? I.E. That there was something that happened in the general area some time period ago? I'm talking about things like thermodynamic carrying capacity, total mass of the test, prevailing wind patterns with estimates of where the aerosol might be now? A simple bayesian analysis for the current facts: what's more likely to have caused the warming - a test that generated injected a small amount of mass into the air, or the massive increase of CO2 over the last several decades? Based on these two comments, it seems like you're putting too much emphasis on correlation, and not enough analysis in to some actual thermodynamics. If you do have access to deeper analysis, please post them. I would be interested in learning something new.

autisticmind 7y ago
Sorry for the late answear, didnt saw it. In this case, its a mix of both. I am not a scientist, so i cant make any analysis. But i read a lot in few last months. I searched for answears i could not find directly. And a small amount of mass(particles) into the air, can cause very big effects. Massive increase of co2 is warming, yes. And when u test tropical aerosols, warming will increase. Different aerosols have different effects on the atmosphere. And the heigt where they were injected also plays a role. As i done my private research, i came to the point, there must be more than only one sort of co2. And i was right.